IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
BISWANATH SOMADDER, H.S. THANGKHIEW, JJ.
The Commissioner of Central Goods – Appellant
Versus
M/s Ishaan Technologies & Services Tax, Shillong Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Central Ex. Ap. No. 1 of 2020
Decided on : 23-09-2021
Central Excise Act - Section 35G - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985- Section 11A - Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - Rule 12 and 25 - Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Rule 14 - Notification - Search and seizure - Payment of Excise duty - Exemption of - Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short- paid or erroneously refunded - Alleged that respondent had misused exemption notification and wrongly availed refunds amount during period for clearances of finished goods, claimed to have been manufactured by respondent Unit during period - Further alleged that respondent had also availed of irregular Cenvat credit amount.
Finding of the Court :
It clearly shows that case at hand, is not one concerning conditions as given in section11A, but issue concerns refunds made purportedly under the entitlements claimed by respondent under exemption notification, which, Appellant/Revenue seeks to recover by taking recourse to section 11A which in our view, is not admissible - Question of any recovery of “duties of excise” not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded in terms of Section 11A(1) of Act also does not arise - Court find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order and no substantial question of law is involved - Judgment and order shall not preclude appellant from taking any other action, provided of course, it is entitled to do so, in accordance with law.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue/Appellant under section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the judgment and order dated 18th December, 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (CESTAT) in Appeal No. E/76154/2014, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the common adjudication order dated 31st March, 2014 and corrigendum dated 5th May, 2014 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, was allowed.
2. The necessary facts, in brief, are that a certain notification, being notification No. 32/99-CE, dated 8th July, 1999, had been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, wherein it was proposed to exempt goods specified in the First and Second Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, from payment of Excise duty from units located in North East India, as specified in the annexure to the said notification. This scheme provided for refund of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise leviable thereon as equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer, other than the amount of duty paid by Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The respondent, which reportedly manufactured excisable goods at its factory situated at Byrnihat, Meghalaya, during the period March, 2002 to November, 2004, was, therefore, found to be eligible for benefits under the said notification.
3. It appears that thereafter, pursuant to a search and seizure operation and subsequent investigation conducted by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), it was alleged that the respondent had misused the exemption notification No. 32/99-CE, dated 8th July, 1999 and wrongly availed refunds amounting to Rs. 9,45,67,825/- during the period from October, 2002 to December, 2004, for the clearances of finished goods, claimed to have been manufactured by the respondent Unit during the period March 2002 to November 2004. It was further alleged that the respondent had also availed of irregular Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 53,05,582/-. A show cause notice dated 28th February, 2006, was then issued by the Additional DG, DGCEI, Kolkata, to the respondent and the charges levelled were, inter alia, as follows:
ii) That M/s. Manaksia Limited (formerly known as M/s. Hindustan Seals Ltd.) having seventeen numbers of units spreading across India engaged in the manufacture of aluminium products, galvanized steel, packing materials such as crown, caps and closures, metal containers, and mosquito coil, purchased more than 91% of the products of M/s. Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Byrnihat.
iii) That in the contrary it appears from the purchase accounts of M/s. Ishaan Technologies that they have/had regularly purchased raw material, components from the M/s. Manaksia Ltd.
iv) That investigation revealed that both M/s. Manaksia Ltd. and M/s. Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. were managed and controlled by the same group of people.
v) That it was alleged that M/s. Manaksia Ltd. in its own business/financial interest, set up a company called M/s. Ishaan Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to promote its own financial/business interest and to avail
Duty of excise - Levy of - A bare reading of section 11A of Act (as amended), clearly shows that stipulation under this provision, can be exercised only if certain conditions precedent are present, a....
Claims for refund of excise duty under Section 11B must be filed within one year; reversal of CENVAT credit to obtain exemption does not constitute a mistake of law, thus refund claims beyond this li....
The limitation period for refund claims under the Central Excise Act can be adjusted based on the time spent before an incorrect authority.
Point of Law : No limitation is prescribed and/or applicable cannot be a ground to consider their claims for exemption when they satisfy prescriptions under the said notification.
A valid refund cannot be revoked based on subsequent changes in law as established Supreme Court decisions must apply retrospectively to actions taken under prior law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.